United States v. Banta Unguru ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 22-10088
22-10089
Plaintiff-Appellee,
D.C. Nos. 2:21-cr-00270-SMB-1
v. 2:20-cr-00542-SMB-1
BANTA UNGURU, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Banta Unguru appeals from the district court’s
judgments and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and aggregate 87-month
sentence for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, aggravated identity theft, and
possession of 15 or more counterfeit or unauthorized access devices, in violation of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1028A(a)(1), and 1029(a)(3), respectively. Pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Unguru’s counsel has filed a brief stating that
there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of
record. Unguru has filed a pro se brief. No answering brief has been filed.
Unguru waived his right to appeal his convictions and sentence. Our
independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80
(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United
States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). Unguru’s pro se
arguments that the government breached the plea agreement, and that his plea and
appellate waiver were not knowing and voluntary, are not supported by the record.
We accordingly dismiss these appeals.
We remand, however, with instructions to correct the written judgments to
conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence by (1) imposing a 12-month term
of supervised release on the aggravated identity theft count, and (2) deleting the
phrase “(outpatient and/or inpatient)” from special supervised release condition 1
in both judgments. See United States v. Hernandez, 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir.
2015) (unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence controls over inconsistent
written judgment).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct the judgments.
2 22-10088 & 22-10089